Search

UNLABELLED: This Delphi exercise aimed to gather consensus surrounding risk factors, diagnosis, and management of chyle leaks after esophagectomy and to develop recommendations for clinical practice.BACKGROUND: Chyle leaks following esophagectomy for malignancy are uncommon. Although they are associated with increased morbidity and mortality, diagnosis and management of these patients remain controversial and a challenge globally.METHODS: This was a modified Delphi exercise was delivered to clinicians across the oesophagogastric anastomosis collaborative. A 5-staged iterative process was used to gather consensus on clinical practice, including a scoping systematic review (stage 1), 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting (stages 2 and 3), data-based analysis (stage 4), and guideline and consensus development (stage 5). Stratified analyses were performed by surgeon specialty and surgeon volume.RESULTS: In stage 1, the steering committee proposed areas of uncertainty across 5 domains: risk factors, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative management (ie, diagnosis, severity, and treatment). In stages 2 and 3, 275 and 250 respondents respectively participated in online voting. Consensus was achieved on intraoperative thoracic duct ligation, postoperative diagnosis by milky chest drain output and biochemical testing with triglycerides and chylomicrons, assessing severity with volume of chest drain over 24 hours and a step-up approach in the management of chyle leaks. Stratified analyses demonstrated consistent results. In stage 4, data from the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit demonstrated that chyle leaks occurred in 5.4% (122/2247). Increasing chyle leak grades were associated with higher rates of pulmonary complications, return to theater, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day mortality. In stage 5, 41 surgeons developed a set of recommendations in the intraoperative techniques, diagnosis, and management of chyle leaks.CONCLUSIONS

Background: Esophagectomy is a technically challenging procedure. associated with significant morbidity. The introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has reduced postoperative morbidity. Objective: Although the short-term effect on complications is increasingly being recognized, the impact on long-term survival remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the association between postoperative complications following MIE and long-term survival. Methods: Data were collected from the EsoBenchmark Collaborative composed by 13 high-volume, expert centers routinely performing MIE. Patients operated between June 1, 2011 and May 31, 2016 were included. Complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. To correct for short-term effects of postoperative complications on mortality, patients who died within 90 days postoperative were excluded. Primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival. Results: A total of 915 patients were included with a mean follow-up time of 30.8 months (standard deviation 17.9). Complications occurred in 542 patients (59.2%) of which 50.2% had a CD grade >= III complication [ie, (re)intervention, organ dysfunction, or death]. The incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) was 135 of 915 patients (14.8%) of which 84 patients were classified as a CD grade >= III. Multivariable analysis showed a significantly deteriorated long-term survival in all patients with AL [hazard ratio (HR) 1.68.95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.24]. This inverse relation was most distinct when AL was scored as a CD grade >= III (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.30-2.58). For all other complications, no significant association with long-term survival was found. Conclusion: The occurrence and severity of AL, but not overall complications, after MIE negatively affect long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients.

Background: In recent years, minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) esophagectomy with high intrathoracic anastomosis has emerged as surgical standard of care for esophageal cancer in expert centers. Alongside this process, many divergent technical aspects of this procedure have been devised in different centers. This study aims at achieving international consensus on the surgical steps of IL reconstruction using Delphi methodology. Methods: The expert panel consisted of specialized esophageal surgeons from 8 European countries. During a two-round Delphi process, a detailed analysis and consensus on key steps of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction (IL esophagectomy) was performed. Results: Response rates in Delphi rounds 1 and 2 were 100% (22 of 22 experts) and 83.3% (20 of 24 experts), respectively. Three essential technical areas of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction were identified: first, vascularization of the gastric conduit, second, gastric mobilization, tube formation and pull-up, and third, anastomotic technique. In addition, 3 main techniques for minimally invasive intrathoracic anastomosis are currently practiced: (i) end-to-side circular stapled, (ii) end-to-side double stapling, and (iii) side-to-side linear stapled technique. The step-by-step procedural analysis unveiled common approaches but also different expert practice. Conclusion: This precise technical description may serve as a clinical guideline for intrathoracic reconstruction after esophagectomy. In addition, the results may aid to harmonize the technical evolution of this complex surgical procedure and thereby facilitate surgical training.

Background: In recent years, minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) esophagectomy with high intrathoracic anastomosis has emerged as surgical standard of care for esophageal cancer in expert centers. Alongside this process, many divergent technical aspects of this procedure have been devised in different centers. This study aims at achieving international consensus on the surgical steps of IL reconstruction using Delphi methodology. Methods: The expert panel consisted of specialized esophageal surgeons from 8 European countries. During a two-round Delphi process, a detailed analysis and consensus on key steps of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction (IL esophagectomy) was performed. Results: Response rates in Delphi rounds 1 and 2 were 100% (22 of 22 experts) and 83.3% (20 of 24 experts), respectively. Three essential technical areas of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction were identified: first, vascularization of the gastric conduit, second, gastric mobilization, tube formation and pull-up, and third, anastomotic technique. In addition, 3 main techniques for minimally invasive intrathoracic anastomosis are currently practiced: (i) end-to-side circular stapled, (ii) end-to-side double stapling, and (iii) side-to-side linear stapled technique. The step-by-step procedural analysis unveiled common approaches but also different expert practice. Conclusion: This precise technical description may serve as a clinical guideline for intrathoracic reconstruction after esophagectomy. In addition, the results may aid to harmonize the technical evolution of this complex surgical procedure and thereby facilitate surgical training.

Background: Esophagectomy is a technically challenging procedure. associated with significant morbidity. The introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has reduced postoperative morbidity. Objective: Although the short-term effect on complications is increasingly being recognized, the impact on long-term survival remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the association between postoperative complications following MIE and long-term survival. Methods: Data were collected from the EsoBenchmark Collaborative composed by 13 high-volume, expert centers routinely performing MIE. Patients operated between June 1, 2011 and May 31, 2016 were included. Complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. To correct for short-term effects of postoperative complications on mortality, patients who died within 90 days postoperative were excluded. Primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival. Results: A total of 915 patients were included with a mean follow-up time of 30.8 months (standard deviation 17.9). Complications occurred in 542 patients (59.2%) of which 50.2% had a CD grade >= III complication [ie, (re)intervention, organ dysfunction, or death]. The incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) was 135 of 915 patients (14.8%) of which 84 patients were classified as a CD grade >= III. Multivariable analysis showed a significantly deteriorated long-term survival in all patients with AL [hazard ratio (HR) 1.68.95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.24]. This inverse relation was most distinct when AL was scored as a CD grade >= III (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.30-2.58). For all other complications, no significant association with long-term survival was found. Conclusion: The occurrence and severity of AL, but not overall complications, after MIE negatively affect long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients.

BackgroundAn important parameter for survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma is lymph node status. The distribution of lymph node metastases depends on tumor characteristics such as tumor location, histology, invasion depth, and on neoadjuvant treatment. The exact distribution is unknown. Neoadjuvant treatment and surgical strategy depends on the distribution pattern of nodal metastases but consensus on the extent of lymphadenectomy has not been reached. The aim of this study is to determine the distribution of lymph node metastases in patients with resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma in whom a transthoracic esophagectomy with a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy is performed. This can be the foundation for a uniform worldwide staging system and establishment of the optimal surgical strategy for esophageal cancer patients.MethodsThe TIGER study is an international observational cohort study with 50 participating centers. Patients with a resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma in whom a transthoracic esophagectomy with a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy is performed in participating centers will be included. All lymph node stations will be excised and separately individually analyzed by pathological examination. The aim is to include 5000 patients. The primary endpoint is the distribution of lymph node metastases in esophageal and esophago-gastric junction carcinoma specimens following transthoracic esophagectomy with at least 2-field lymphadenectomy in relation to tumor histology, tumor location, invasion depth, number of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases, pre-operative diagnostics, neo-adjuvant therapy and (disease free) survival.DiscussionThe TIGER study will provide a roadmap of the location of lymph node metastases in relation to tumor histology, tumor location, invasion depth, number of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases, pre-operative diagnostics, neo-adjuvant therapy and survival. Patient-tailored treatmen

BackgroundAn important parameter for survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma is lymph node status. The distribution of lymph node metastases depends on tumor characteristics such as tumor location, histology, invasion depth, and on neoadjuvant treatment. The exact distribution is unknown. Neoadjuvant treatment and surgical strategy depends on the distribution pattern of nodal metastases but consensus on the extent of lymphadenectomy has not been reached. The aim of this study is to determine the distribution of lymph node metastases in patients with resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma in whom a transthoracic esophagectomy with a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy is performed. This can be the foundation for a uniform worldwide staging system and establishment of the optimal surgical strategy for esophageal cancer patients.MethodsThe TIGER study is an international observational cohort study with 50 participating centers. Patients with a resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma in whom a transthoracic esophagectomy with a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy is performed in participating centers will be included. All lymph node stations will be excised and separately individually analyzed by pathological examination. The aim is to include 5000 patients. The primary endpoint is the distribution of lymph node metastases in esophageal and esophago-gastric junction carcinoma specimens following transthoracic esophagectomy with at least 2-field lymphadenectomy in relation to tumor histology, tumor location, invasion depth, number of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases, pre-operative diagnostics, neo-adjuvant therapy and (disease free) survival.DiscussionThe TIGER study will provide a roadmap of the location of lymph node metastases in relation to tumor histology, tumor location, invasion depth, number of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases, pre-operative diagnostics, neo-adjuvant therapy and survival. Patient-tailored treatmen

Purpose We aimed to obtain information on the number of Nordic centers performing tracheal resections, crico-tracheal resections, and laryngo-tracheal reconstructions, as well as the patient volume and the standard regimens associated with these procedures. Methods Consultants at all Departments of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery (ORL-HNS, n = 22) and Thoracic Surgery (n = 21) in the five Nordic countries were invited (April 2018—January 2019) to participate in an online survey. Results All 43 departments responded to the survey. Twenty departments declared to perform one or more of the three types of tracheal resections. At five hospitals, departments of ORL-HNS and Thoracic Surgery perform these operations in collaboration. Hence, one or more of the tracheal operations in question are carried out at 15 centers. The median annual number of tracheal operations per center is five (range 1–20). Great variations were found regarding contraindications (relative and absolute) for surgery, the use of guardian sterno-mental sutures (all patients, 33%; selected cases, 40% of centers), prophylactic antibiotic therapy (cefuroxime +/− metronidazole, penicillin +/− metronidazole, clindamycin, imipenem, or none), post-operative follow-up time (range: children: 3–120 months; adults: 0–60 months), and the performance of post-operative bronchoscopy. Conclusions Fifteen centers each perform a low number of annual operations with significant variations in the selection of patients and the clinical setup, which raises the question if a higher degree of collaboration and centralization would be warranted. We encourage Nordic transnational collaboration, pursuing alignment on central management issues, and establishment of a common prospective database for future tracheal resection surgery.

Objective: To define best possible outcomes in total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (ttMIE). Background: TtMIE, performed by experts in patients with low comorbidity, may serve as a benchmark procedure for esophagectomy. Patients and Methods: From a cohort of 1057 ttMIE, performed over a 5-year period in 13 high-volume centers for esophageal surgery, we selected a study group of 334 patients (31.6%) that fulfilled criteria of low comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists score <= 2, WHO/ECOG score <= 1, age <= 65 years, body mass index 19-29 kg/m(2)). Endpoints included postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome parameters of the participating centers to represent best achievable results. Results: Benchmark patients were predominantly male (82.9%) with a median age of 58 years (53-62). High intrathoracic (Ivor Lewis) and cervical esophagogastrostomy (McKeown) were performed in 188 (56.3%) and 146 (43.7%) patients, respectively. Median (IQR) ICU and hospital stay was 0 (0-2) and 12 (9-18) days, respectively. 56.0% of patients developed at least 1 complication, and 26.9% experienced major morbidity (>= grade III), mostly related to pulmonary complications (25.7%), anastomotic leakage (15.9%), and cardiac events (13.5%). Benchmark values at 30 days after hospital discharge were <= 55.7% and <= 30.8% for overall and major complications, <= 18.0% for readmission, <= 3.1% for positive resection margins, and >= 23 for lymph node yield. Benchmarks at 30 and 90 days were <= 1.0% and <= 4.6% for mortality, and <= 40.8 and <= 42.8 for the comprehensive complication index, respectively. Conclusion: This outcome analysis of patients with low comorbidity undergoing ttMIE may serve as a reference to evaluate surgical performance in major esophageal resection.

Objective: To define best possible outcomes in total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (ttMIE). Background: TtMIE, performed by experts in patients with low comorbidity, may serve as a benchmark procedure for esophagectomy. Patients and Methods: From a cohort of 1057 ttMIE, performed over a 5-year period in 13 high-volume centers for esophageal surgery, we selected a study group of 334 patients (31.6%) that fulfilled criteria of low comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists score <= 2, WHO/ECOG score <= 1, age <= 65 years, body mass index 19-29 kg/m(2)). Endpoints included postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome parameters of the participating centers to represent best achievable results. Results: Benchmark patients were predominantly male (82.9%) with a median age of 58 years (53-62). High intrathoracic (Ivor Lewis) and cervical esophagogastrostomy (McKeown) were performed in 188 (56.3%) and 146 (43.7%) patients, respectively. Median (IQR) ICU and hospital stay was 0 (0-2) and 12 (9-18) days, respectively. 56.0% of patients developed at least 1 complication, and 26.9% experienced major morbidity (>= grade III), mostly related to pulmonary complications (25.7%), anastomotic leakage (15.9%), and cardiac events (13.5%). Benchmark values at 30 days after hospital discharge were <= 55.7% and <= 30.8% for overall and major complications, <= 18.0% for readmission, <= 3.1% for positive resection margins, and >= 23 for lymph node yield. Benchmarks at 30 and 90 days were <= 1.0% and <= 4.6% for mortality, and <= 40.8 and <= 42.8 for the comprehensive complication index, respectively. Conclusion: This outcome analysis of patients with low comorbidity undergoing ttMIE may serve as a reference to evaluate surgical performance in major esophageal resection.